What’s most difficult about these people is as fast as you block them they create a new account. To quote Boris it’s like whack a mole. I haven’t encountered this accout but have crossed swords with similar who all use the same language & approach. There ought to be consequences for their hateful behaviour.
Hey everyone. I happen to have a similar name. I remember when I came across Jessica Rose PhD I thought it was coincidental, especially as she was expressing exactly the same concerns regarding the mandates. But I'm not trying to lay claim to what was a common opinion in hindsight. Anyway, what might be of interest to some of you is that I have had ongoing difficulties with an Iraqi born man who I really shouldn't name due to the conditions of the intervention order he against me. Without sounding sorry for myself, here are a few things that he has done: slashed my tires the night before I had a trial for a new job, wrecked 2 computer towers, abused my every day and night making me late for work until i eventually lost my job, attacked my mother and my father and threatened to "cut their heads off" and he also was very fast to report (many reports) to police a version of events that is almost entirely wrong by reversal. When I was arrested on the first occasion I was obviously finding it difficult to understand that someone was setting me up rather than a misunderstanding. I ended up being taken to a psyche ward due to the combination of his preparation I guess as well as my responses and not really knowing the legal process regarding the Family Violence Intervention orders and safety notices. I did mention the word terrorism a couple of times to the psychiatrist which actually contributed to a diagnosis of some type of schizophrenia and a involuntary treatment order. So as it turns out now, almost 2 years later, (unsurprisingly) I do not have schizophrenia.... But right now as I write this and think about what I'm responding to regarding Jessrose19811 impersonating the "unacceptable" (blog title) Jessica Rose PhD, I honestly wish a condition could explain it. I know I only just recently made this account, probably because I actually felt like my identity was being taken away in essence, as he was taking possession and credit for the handful of good qualities that I have. This man has moved to a house that is literally one block from the magistrates court. He is 62, he speaks 6 or 7 languages, including Greek, Arabic, Serbian, Kurdish, English (I am not as certain of the others). He came to Australia in 1989 (exploiting a loop hole via the New Zealand/ Australia visa and residency particulars.) He says "Peshmerga" when he recounts his childhood as if it were life boy scouts. He presents as being anti-muslim and insists that he hates his own people, but with another face he prepared the police to interpret my version of events as racist and discriminatory when I explained my reasons for defending myself in what was a very aggressive struggle. The vitriol, and choice of words by the user Jessrose19811 as well as the hyperbolic vulgar tone Is very ... distinctive to me. Anyway, I've actually due in court tomorrow for something on this topic exactly, so that's as much time as I think I should spend dwelling on this.
These tweets probably are foreign based efforts to promote problems in the UK or elsewhere in the still democratic world. They want to sow hatred and discord. The more you react the more information you give that can be used in future attacks.
However, I see a person behind this account has also targeted your colleagues and your employer with filthy accusations. That makes it serious. They caused you harm. Did you consult a lawyer ? Reporting this to the police could make possible to find those responsible through their accounts.
I couldn't agree with you more. In particular, They/He are/is probably very specifically trying to promote problems in Ireland, here's why I think so: He requested the court hearing be relocated to a suburb that bares the same name as an Irish town along the river Blackwater; and probably my ethnic background might be part of it.
Take a look at “her” followers and following. It’s a troll account. Maybe one day someone will discover who actually runs these accounts. It’s unlikely to be a real person called Jess Rose. Block.
Thanks for posting. I too am in favour of free speech, and robust debate about issues from competent people is of course welcome. But this kind of hateful and abusive trolling cannot be defended as a form of 'free speech' ... there must be limits of some kind so that extremes like this can be called out and their continuance prevented. Of course they should be blocked, but that doesn't really deal with the problem.
If you're a free speech advocate, there's only really one position: absolutism.
Anything else isn't free speech.
Incitement is, in lay terms by my (possibly inadequate) understanding/characterisation the wilful intent to use (free) speech to induce actual harm. That is a separate but conjoined issue to free speech itself I.e. It's a conscious choice by the speaker to achieve/induce an illegal thing (causing of harm) via very specific speech driven by intent. Thus, you can have 1A but prosecute for incitement.
Within free speech is the acceptance that one doesn't have the right to not be offended etc.
The basic free speech argument is expressed by Ann Widdecombe here, in the Oxford Union. Jump to the last 2:30 for that fairly standard free speech argument if you want the short cut past her wider ranging address.
If someone calls you a racist but can't show receipts to others, you're not a racist. The label is ugly. The environment now is more fraught in some ways per Scott's observations here, but if they can't back their accusation/assertion, there's technically no grounds for your sanction; granted the process can be the punishment. That puts the onus back on them and opens then up to harassment, incitement etc, especially now under the second part of:
"It IS an offence to a) *intentionally* stir racial hatred; b) *knowingly* publish false information *intending* to cause non-trivial harm." (Silkie Carlo).
Trolling of certain kinds might breach b) in the UK jurisdiction. That's the game/trap trolls now work in closer proximity to. The question becomes whether the police/state will objectively assess what Scott says are "pro left actors" who may be pushing a state-backed agenda and so get away with this time and again. B) and this potential state bias is pending test.
yeh, I am an absolutist when it comes to how you use your breath, as you say, there are already laws for incitement, threatening behaviour, common assault (which is being aggressive, in someone’s face) etc. I see no reason to police an opinion somebody voices however unfashionable or politically incorrect that opinion may be. I have no time for people moaning about hurty words on social media, since if someone is rude to you, you can block them. The social media platforms give you the power to do that. There are also libel laws if you smear a person enough to damage their reputation, and hurt their career etc. Once the state starts to tell you what you can voice it is only a small step to the thought police, in fact we are already there….
Having seen this stuff, which I didn't see in my cursory scan of recent posts while replying to you on the other article, I'd report the worst troll attack and block.
What’s most difficult about these people is as fast as you block them they create a new account. To quote Boris it’s like whack a mole. I haven’t encountered this accout but have crossed swords with similar who all use the same language & approach. There ought to be consequences for their hateful behaviour.
Hey everyone. I happen to have a similar name. I remember when I came across Jessica Rose PhD I thought it was coincidental, especially as she was expressing exactly the same concerns regarding the mandates. But I'm not trying to lay claim to what was a common opinion in hindsight. Anyway, what might be of interest to some of you is that I have had ongoing difficulties with an Iraqi born man who I really shouldn't name due to the conditions of the intervention order he against me. Without sounding sorry for myself, here are a few things that he has done: slashed my tires the night before I had a trial for a new job, wrecked 2 computer towers, abused my every day and night making me late for work until i eventually lost my job, attacked my mother and my father and threatened to "cut their heads off" and he also was very fast to report (many reports) to police a version of events that is almost entirely wrong by reversal. When I was arrested on the first occasion I was obviously finding it difficult to understand that someone was setting me up rather than a misunderstanding. I ended up being taken to a psyche ward due to the combination of his preparation I guess as well as my responses and not really knowing the legal process regarding the Family Violence Intervention orders and safety notices. I did mention the word terrorism a couple of times to the psychiatrist which actually contributed to a diagnosis of some type of schizophrenia and a involuntary treatment order. So as it turns out now, almost 2 years later, (unsurprisingly) I do not have schizophrenia.... But right now as I write this and think about what I'm responding to regarding Jessrose19811 impersonating the "unacceptable" (blog title) Jessica Rose PhD, I honestly wish a condition could explain it. I know I only just recently made this account, probably because I actually felt like my identity was being taken away in essence, as he was taking possession and credit for the handful of good qualities that I have. This man has moved to a house that is literally one block from the magistrates court. He is 62, he speaks 6 or 7 languages, including Greek, Arabic, Serbian, Kurdish, English (I am not as certain of the others). He came to Australia in 1989 (exploiting a loop hole via the New Zealand/ Australia visa and residency particulars.) He says "Peshmerga" when he recounts his childhood as if it were life boy scouts. He presents as being anti-muslim and insists that he hates his own people, but with another face he prepared the police to interpret my version of events as racist and discriminatory when I explained my reasons for defending myself in what was a very aggressive struggle. The vitriol, and choice of words by the user Jessrose19811 as well as the hyperbolic vulgar tone Is very ... distinctive to me. Anyway, I've actually due in court tomorrow for something on this topic exactly, so that's as much time as I think I should spend dwelling on this.
These tweets probably are foreign based efforts to promote problems in the UK or elsewhere in the still democratic world. They want to sow hatred and discord. The more you react the more information you give that can be used in future attacks.
However, I see a person behind this account has also targeted your colleagues and your employer with filthy accusations. That makes it serious. They caused you harm. Did you consult a lawyer ? Reporting this to the police could make possible to find those responsible through their accounts.
I couldn't agree with you more. In particular, They/He are/is probably very specifically trying to promote problems in Ireland, here's why I think so: He requested the court hearing be relocated to a suburb that bares the same name as an Irish town along the river Blackwater; and probably my ethnic background might be part of it.
Take a look at “her” followers and following. It’s a troll account. Maybe one day someone will discover who actually runs these accounts. It’s unlikely to be a real person called Jess Rose. Block.
I’m not clear why you are giving this person (if that’s what it is), the oxygen of publicity.
To borrow from the late Linda Smith, they shouldnt even be given the oxygen of oxygen
Thanks for posting. I too am in favour of free speech, and robust debate about issues from competent people is of course welcome. But this kind of hateful and abusive trolling cannot be defended as a form of 'free speech' ... there must be limits of some kind so that extremes like this can be called out and their continuance prevented. Of course they should be blocked, but that doesn't really deal with the problem.
If you're a free speech advocate, there's only really one position: absolutism.
Anything else isn't free speech.
Incitement is, in lay terms by my (possibly inadequate) understanding/characterisation the wilful intent to use (free) speech to induce actual harm. That is a separate but conjoined issue to free speech itself I.e. It's a conscious choice by the speaker to achieve/induce an illegal thing (causing of harm) via very specific speech driven by intent. Thus, you can have 1A but prosecute for incitement.
Within free speech is the acceptance that one doesn't have the right to not be offended etc.
The basic free speech argument is expressed by Ann Widdecombe here, in the Oxford Union. Jump to the last 2:30 for that fairly standard free speech argument if you want the short cut past her wider ranging address.
https://youtu.be/njj_rG_9HKM?feature=shared
If someone calls you a racist but can't show receipts to others, you're not a racist. The label is ugly. The environment now is more fraught in some ways per Scott's observations here, but if they can't back their accusation/assertion, there's technically no grounds for your sanction; granted the process can be the punishment. That puts the onus back on them and opens then up to harassment, incitement etc, especially now under the second part of:
"It IS an offence to a) *intentionally* stir racial hatred; b) *knowingly* publish false information *intending* to cause non-trivial harm." (Silkie Carlo).
Trolling of certain kinds might breach b) in the UK jurisdiction. That's the game/trap trolls now work in closer proximity to. The question becomes whether the police/state will objectively assess what Scott says are "pro left actors" who may be pushing a state-backed agenda and so get away with this time and again. B) and this potential state bias is pending test.
yeh, I am an absolutist when it comes to how you use your breath, as you say, there are already laws for incitement, threatening behaviour, common assault (which is being aggressive, in someone’s face) etc. I see no reason to police an opinion somebody voices however unfashionable or politically incorrect that opinion may be. I have no time for people moaning about hurty words on social media, since if someone is rude to you, you can block them. The social media platforms give you the power to do that. There are also libel laws if you smear a person enough to damage their reputation, and hurt their career etc. Once the state starts to tell you what you can voice it is only a small step to the thought police, in fact we are already there….
Having seen this stuff, which I didn't see in my cursory scan of recent posts while replying to you on the other article, I'd report the worst troll attack and block.
They just create another account
And just keep blocking & reporting. No effort
And the Police/State are not interested in left wing hate merchants?? Surely not.